Something that does intrigue me is the sizeable chunk of English & Lowland Scottish Brythonic Celt descendants that appear to have been ignored. The approx. current populations of Britain & Ireland as follows:

If we assume that the western half of England & central southern Scotland still retain a large proportion of Brythonic Celt descendants, then I would guess that English 'Celts' would easily outnumber the combined Welsh, Scottish & Irish Celtic populations.

I appreciate that this is far from an exact science, but adding the current Scottish, Welsh & irish populations together totals approx. 17 million. We know that those countries have a fair proportion of non-Celts, plus some of their actual Celt descendants may have been in England at some stage, so that would further reduce their totals.

Studying the populations of the various countries in the medieval era would probably make more sense, but I'd guess English & southern Scottish Celts would still outnumber the rest.

Is this theorizing ridiculously naive?

Cheers,BobEDIT: PS I've seen English population estimates of 2.8 million in 1200, reaching 5 m in 1360. Wales is said by some to have had a pop of 150,000 in 1066, rising to 300,000 in 1350. If accurate, I'd guess even the western third of England alone would have a Brythonic Celt presence well in excess of that existing in Wales.

Something that does intrigue me is the sizeable chunk of English & Lowland Scottish Brythonic Celt descendants that appear to have been ignored. The approx. current populations of Britain & Ireland as follows:

If we assume that the western half of England & central southern Scotland still retain a large propertion of Brythonic Celt descendants, then I would guess that English 'Celts' would easily outnumber the combined Welsh, Scottish & Irish Celtic populations.

I appreciate that this is far from an exact science, but adding the current Scottish, Welsh & irish populations together totals approx. 17 million. We know that those countries have a fair proportion of non-Celts, plus some of their actual Celt descendants may have been in England at some stage, so that would further reduce their totals.

Studying the populations of the various countries in the medieval era would probably make more sense, but I'd guess English & southern Scottish Celts would still outnumber the rest.

Is this theorizing ridiculously naive?

Cheers,BobEDIT: PS I've seen English population estimates of 2.8 million in 1200, reaching 5 m in 1360. Wales is said by some to have had a pop of 150,000 in 1066, rising to 300,000 in 1350. If accurate, I'd guess even the western third of England alone would have a Brythonic Celt presence well in excess of that existing in Wales.

The survival of the ancient Britons (I think this is a better term than Celtic, which to me is largely linguistic and ignores the pre-Celtic people of Britain) in England has always been of interest to me.

If we look at genetic studies on this topic, remember that the focus is largely on Y-dna and the women are often ignored. It could be that ancient British females survived the Dark Ages more than the men!

An early paper from 2006 by Mark Thomas argued for Anglo Saxon apartheid and for significant genetic replacement in England but I think this paper may be quite dated now and Heinrich Harke has recently argued that in parts of England, Anglo-Saxons and Britons lived side by side and that genetic input was roughly equal.

I think that ancient British survival in England is probably quite varied from region to region and of course England is probably more mixed in terms of genetic input than some of the traditional "Celtic" areas. I've mentioned it before but at the moment genetics is unable to give precise figures for ancient Briton survival in England.

If we look at genetic studies on this topic, remember that the focus is largely on Y-dna and the women are often ignored. It could be that ancient British females survived the Dark Ages more than the men!

When it comes to migration of ethnic groups, it's much easier to pigeonhole Y-haplogroup than mtDNA's. While many subclades of e.g R1b have very specific geographic distributions that correlate with historical migrations (l21 to Celts, U106 to Germanics), mtDNA's tend to have a more homogeneous spread over Europe, with most haplogroups running to similar percentages in most regions.

That said, if there are mtDNA subclades that are found in the traditional Germanic-speaking world, and a rare in regions were few Germanics have migrated, then we'd be able to test the Anglo-Saxon replacement hypothesis. We'd also have to check if these haplogroups as a common as west Britain. If they aren't, then they're likely a good candidate for AS and Viking lineages in Britain.

The contribution of AS and Vikings on the Y-chromosome, which appears to be quite significant, is likely more than on the mtDNA side as migrants tend to bring less women with them.

Quote

I've mentioned it before but at the moment genetics is unable to give precise figures for ancient Briton survival in England.

Maybe a quick way to do it would be to take the percentage of l21 in a region, and add approximately 30 percent (as the people of western Britain were once probably about 70 percent l21 but migration has turned that to more like 60 percent).

So a area with 30 percent l21 could be about 40 percent pre-Anglo Saxon British.

The percentages may be too low because it doesn't take into account non-L21 admixture from Romans and Belgics in England. But with the small amount of L21 brought by Germanics, this may balance itself out.

This ofcourse rests on the assumption that prior to the Romans the amount of L21 in England was more or less identical to the Celtic Fringe.

....I am also talking about being systematic, not about rolling the dice and getting lucky.

When we are talking about being lucky or unlucky we are just talking about the outcomes of taking a risk. There is nothing inherently negative about this.

A truly systematic approach is a pure top-down testing strategy. In that kind of approach you move right down the line from the top. For instance, for an R1b1a2 predicted person you would follow the line..M269 (assuming +, thenL23, thenL150L51L11P312 (assuming +, thenL459 (possibly Z245 as well)L21DF13etc.

That sequence of testing is probably not the best use of money for R1b1a2 predicted people from Western Europe, as 95% of the R1b folks from this geography are either P312 or U106.

It would make more sense to skip right to P312 (if 492=12) or U106 (if 492=13) or if you haven't tested extensively STRs just test P312 and if negative go to U106.

Similarly, if you are P312+ U152- DF27- I think there is a good argument to be made to skipping right to DF13.

From a community perspective, I don't like that, because I don't want people to be discouraged if they are DF13- and assume their odds of being L459xL21 or L21xDF13 are not worth testing. This is kind of the problem current P312 pseudo asterisk people face. They probably know they are U152- and may know they are L21-. They should definitely test for DF27 but their odds of being either L459xL21, L238, DF19 are not that great.

However, if I was to start over with a clean slate, I'd either go whole hog with the top down testing starting at the P312 level, which means L459 is next or I'd take a chance at the the skip right to DF13. Unfortunately (for me), because of the options in this L459/L21/DF13 line, I'd probably have tested for U152 and DF27 first because of the greater clarity in options.

I would have been wise, though, to have skipped right from P312+ U152- DF27- to DF13 rather than going through either L459 or L21 first. The same can be said of the majority of us in this. A very high percentage of us are DF13. There is risk in any testing strategy, but more people in the L459/L21 world will save more money henceforth by going right to DF13.

Irrelevant is not the right word, but the very high frequency of DF13 within L21/L459 would rationally cause DF13 to be the priority test.

This whole discussion is not a hypothetical discussion, but it is not really an L21 project discussion. It's a P312 project discussion. Poor Henry Z has a lot on his plate to decipher any implied suggestions on testing strategy. I think from a position that he is in, he can't get into the confusion of skipping to DF13, etc., etc. so the prudent thing for P312 project would stick with a pure top down assumed approach. ............ This means if you are P312+, you should go right down the line and test for U152, DF27, L459, L238, DF19.

Fine, but not any better than testing for L21 instead of L459. Had he been the man in Case A above, starting with L21 would have spared him the waste of time and money on DF13.

This case is critical. We can look at multiple cases, but this is the one that counts. The large majority of L21 is DF13 so this is the important situation. As I just posted, probably the most financially smart thing is for people to skip both L21 and L459 if they are P312+ U152- DF27- and particularly if they are from the British Isles.

This is just semantics, but in a sense, DF13 has usurped L21. L21xDF13 just isn't a very large group. It's still important for understanding the origin of DF13. Likewise, I think L459xL21 is important for understanding the origin of L21.

There is such a very large quanity of Predicted R1b1a2's that tests getting to a major terminal SNP is becoming the odd man out process. Just think if six tests and you have spent nearly $200 US. For that price I think that the new Geno2.0 test is the most valuable test that will be available because of not only the Y-DNA (DeepClade) test, but MtDNA, X, Ancestrally Informative Markers (AIMs) results. Just the Y-DNA is going from 862 SNPs to a total of 6153 includes all available as of Nov. 2011.

For the price, I got to believe this is the only way to proceed forward in most cases.

There is such a very large quanity of Predicted R1b1a2's that tests getting to a major terminal SNP is becoming the odd man out process. Just think if six tests and you have spent nearly $200 US. For that price I think that the new Geno2.0 test is the most valuable test that will be available because of not only the Y-DNA (DeepClade) test, but MtDNA, X, Ancestrally Informative Markers (AIMs) results. Just the Y-DNA is going from 862 SNPs to a total of 6153 includes all available as of Nov. 2011.

For the price, I got to believe this is the only way to proceed forward in most cases.

MJost

Geno 2.0 just seems expensive. I don't know how many R1b1a2 predicted types will spring for that. Perhaps Razyn is right though, many of the R1b1a2 predicted folks may have lost interest anyway.

I assume L459 is in Geno 2.0. Does anyone know? I think DF49 may have missed the cut-off. I hope not.

You have a good point. Geno 2.0 may be something we should really push for the unwashed audience.. You get more than Y DNA stuff with it anyway. I think David R was suggesting we wait on that... but may be he was just talking about current Y deep clade tested people.

I see what your saying but it will be hard to adjust after thinking pretty well of the big L21-U152 etc division. It is an interesting point though that the big explosion in now known to be DF13 derived. ....

I know. This is why I used a provocative subject for this thread. I just think we need a good point/counter-point discussion on L459, L21 and DF13... and also let's not forget Z245.

@Castlebob,The publication of the "People of the British Isles" report should give us lots of new data and should balance things out a bit. I am also looking forward to the "Irish DNA Atlas" to give a total picture of the Isles. I am participating in this project. In the next few months we should get the detailed results of the Geno 2.0 project and this should give us new insights into the genetic makeup of the Isles. I have also subscribed to Geno 2.0. There is a lot to look forward to in the next few months.

Seems like that unless one has already tested DF13- DF63- L459+/Z245+ P312+, that there would be no reason/benefit to testing L21.

As far as the Welsh, I'm detecting a trend that I want to share. Its speculative, but I have an affinity to them anyway, with a name like Walsh. LOL.

...but I do have some analysis. BTW, its not really the Welsh, its the Old Britons that are important.

Mike, Will you be posting the info re Old Britons on this thread?

Okay. I'll proceed. I've been waiting to hear back on Thomas Krahn's findings. Remember, we had a prior false start on L459 when we found an L21+ L459- guy, Bonham, but later found his L21 result from FTDNA was in error and he is being re-classified as U152. The significance of a discussion on L459xL21 depends on the validity of Jones' results.

Here is the latest update I have.

Quote from: David R

As a matter of fact I just heard back from Thomas:

Quote from: Thomas Krahan

I was just surprised by myself when I read this on the list. However I re-checked the raw data and all seems to be clean. I placed a re-run order for L21 because the result was from 2009, just to be 100% sure, but all tests seem to have been running on the same sample.

If we look at genetic studies on this topic, remember that the focus is largely on Y-dna and the women are often ignored. It could be that ancient British females survived the Dark Ages more than the men!

When it comes to migration of ethnic groups, it's much easier to pigeonhole Y-haplogroup than mtDNA's. While many subclades of e.g R1b have very specific geographic distributions that correlate with historical migrations (l21 to Celts, U106 to Germanics), mtDNA's tend to have a more homogeneous spread over Europe, with most haplogroups running to similar percentages in most regions.

That said, if there are mtDNA subclades that are found in the traditional Germanic-speaking world, and a rare in regions were few Germanics have migrated, then we'd be able to test the Anglo-Saxon replacement hypothesis. We'd also have to check if these haplogroups as a common as west Britain. If they aren't, then they're likely a good candidate for AS and Viking lineages in Britain.

The contribution of AS and Vikings on the Y-chromosome, which appears to be quite significant, is likely more than on the mtDNA side as migrants tend to bring less women with them.

Quote

I've mentioned it before but at the moment genetics is unable to give precise figures for ancient Briton survival in England.

Maybe a quick way to do it would be to take the percentage of l21 in a region, and add approximately 30 percent (as the people of western Britain were once probably about 70 percent l21 but migration has turned that to more like 60 percent).

So a area with 30 percent l21 could be about 40 percent pre-Anglo Saxon British.

The percentages may be too low because it doesn't take into account non-L21 admixture from Romans and Belgics in England. But with the small amount of L21 brought by Germanics, this may balance itself out.

This ofcourse rests on the assumption that prior to the Romans the amount of L21 in England was more or less identical to the Celtic Fringe.

Although it is a bit of a generalisation I do think a good L21 frequency map for England to compare with a goo U106 map would probably be as close as we can get to a Celtic substrate v Germanics map for England. I tend to think U152 is also more likely Celtic in origin given its sudden fall off at the Romance-Germanic interface in northern Europe close to England. I do recall some study showing that there was a much higher L21 in Devon and inland Yorkshire (where Celtic lingered in the kingdoms of Domnonia and in Loidis/Elmet and even later) than in the south and east. I would think L21 has an clear cline from east to west but I cant think of an entirely satisfactory map showing this. I am well aware it is slightly generalising but the L21/U106 ratio still seems about the closest R1b-based measure of Celtic vs Germanic. L21 is even the top dog in NE Scotland so its not just an Atlantic thing. However, it is true that we cannot assume all the pre-Roman tribes were predominantly L21. The Welsh are apparently largely the descendants of the Iron Age peoples of Wales, not some sort of refuge for the Britons of England as is often portrayed. I have a suspicion the Belgae had a significant amount of U152 and perhaps other non-L21 P312 clades. Its also an area where you would suspect the Roman empire to have left some exotica.

Has anybody posted an good approximate list of the SNPs that should be included on the Geno2.0?

@Mark,

Nat Geo will publish a detailed report, including SNPs, for the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting, which will be held in San Francisco in November.

In total, the new SNP count to be included on the new Nat Geo 2.0 chip includes both new and known existing SNPs in the following amounts: ■Autosomal including X – 147,000 ■Neanderthal – 26,000 ■Denisovan – 1,500 ■Aboriginal – 13,000 ■Eskimo – 12,000 ■Chimpanzee – 1,100 ■Y Chromosome – 12,000 ■mtDNA – 31,000

Q&A with Bennett Greenspan"Does Family Tree DNA plan to offer a test that will be more extensive then the new Genographic test for the Y chromosome?

A: No. The most extensive test for obtaining YDNA SNP data is available on the Geno 2.0 chip and Family Tree DNA has no plans to compete with its partner. STR results will not be supplied by Geno 2.0 and all regular genealogical marker tests should be ordered through Family Tree DNA. These two tests go hand in hand.

By way of example, in haplogroup R-M222 – the new Geno chip includes discoveries of at least three unique SNP’s downstream of R-M222.

These 10,000 new SNPs will provide, for almost everyone, one or two additional clades (subhaplogroups) down the tree from where they are located today. For some people, these will reach into a genealogical timeframe, connecting their SNPs and their STR data. The STR tests will then be used to further augment the Geno 2.0 SNP tests for genealogical comparisons within families."

Q&A with Spencer Wells"How many SNPs do we have in the test?

A total of around 146,000 ancestry-informative markers (AIMs): ~130,000 autosomal and X-chromosomal, ~13,000 Y-chromosomal, and ~3200 mtDNA"

In addition to discussing the SNPs on chips information that Spencer has previously provided to our community, he also says that ‘National Geographic and its partners are preparing two publications that discuss the new chip and have submitted an abstract for the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting, which will be held in San Francisco in November.”

Spencer also spoke a little about the new National Geographic online community capability. This will be in addition to the option for participants to transfer their results to Family Tree DNA, for free. He says that “participants will have the opportunity to choose to register for the Genographic online community to connect with other participants and find shared ancestry, helping to fill in the gaps between what they know about their recent genealogy and their genetic results.”

Has anybody posted an good approximate list of the SNPs that should be included on the Geno2.0?

@Mark,

Spencer Well will publish a detailed report, including SNPs, before the availability of the test (end October).

In total, the new SNP count to be included on the new Nat Geo 2.0 chip includes both new and known existing SNPs in the following amounts: ■Autosomal including X – 147,000 ■Neanderthal – 26,000 ■Denisovan – 1,500 ■Aboriginal – 13,000 ■Eskimo – 12,000 ■Chimpanzee – 1,100 ■Y Chromosome – 12,000 ■mtDNA – 31,000

Q&A with Bennett Greenspan"Does Family Tree DNA plan to offer a test that will be more extensive then the new Genographic test for the Y chromosome?

A: No. The most extensive test for obtaining YDNA SNP data is available on the Geno 2.0 chip and Family Tree DNA has no plans to compete with its partner. STR results will not be supplied by Geno 2.0 and all regular genealogical marker tests should be ordered through Family Tree DNA. These two tests go hand in hand.

By way of example, in haplogroup R-M222 – the new Geno chip includes discoveries of at least three unique SNP’s downstream of R-M222.

These 10,000 new SNPs will provide, for almost everyone, one or two additional clades (subhaplogroups) down the tree from where they are located today. For some people, these will reach into a genealogical timeframe, connecting their SNPs and their STR data. The STR tests will then be used to further augment the Geno 2.0 SNP tests for genealogical comparisons within families."

A key is that there may be a November 2011 cut-off date for what SNPs are included. That may leave out SNPs like DF49. I wonder about DF63?

If we look at genetic studies on this topic, remember that the focus is largely on Y-dna and the women are often ignored. It could be that ancient British females survived the Dark Ages more than the men!

When it comes to migration of ethnic groups, it's much easier to pigeonhole Y-haplogroup than mtDNA's. While many subclades of e.g R1b have very specific geographic distributions that correlate with historical migrations (l21 to Celts, U106 to Germanics), mtDNA's tend to have a more homogeneous spread over Europe, with most haplogroups running to similar percentages in most regions.

That said, if there are mtDNA subclades that are found in the traditional Germanic-speaking world, and a rare in regions were few Germanics have migrated, then we'd be able to test the Anglo-Saxon replacement hypothesis. We'd also have to check if these haplogroups as a common as west Britain. If they aren't, then they're likely a good candidate for AS and Viking lineages in Britain.

The contribution of AS and Vikings on the Y-chromosome, which appears to be quite significant, is likely more than on the mtDNA side as migrants tend to bring less women with them.

Quote

I've mentioned it before but at the moment genetics is unable to give precise figures for ancient Briton survival in England.

Maybe a quick way to do it would be to take the percentage of l21 in a region, and add approximately 30 percent (as the people of western Britain were once probably about 70 percent l21 but migration has turned that to more like 60 percent).

So a area with 30 percent l21 could be about 40 percent pre-Anglo Saxon British.

The percentages may be too low because it doesn't take into account non-L21 admixture from Romans and Belgics in England. But with the small amount of L21 brought by Germanics, this may balance itself out.

This ofcourse rests on the assumption that prior to the Romans the amount of L21 in England was more or less identical to the Celtic Fringe.

Although it is a bit of a generalisation I do think a good L21 frequency map for England to compare with a goo U106 map would probably be as close as we can get to a Celtic substrate v Germanics map for England. I tend to think U152 is also more likely Celtic in origin given its sudden fall off at the Romance-Germanic interface in northern Europe close to England. I do recall some study showing that there was a much higher L21 in Devon and inland Yorkshire (where Celtic lingered in the kingdoms of Domnonia and in Loidis/Elmet and even later) than in the south and east. I would think L21 has an clear cline from east to west but I cant think of an entirely satisfactory map showing this. I am well aware it is slightly generalising but the L21/U106 ratio still seems about the closest R1b-based measure of Celtic vs Germanic. L21 is even the top dog in NE Scotland so its not just an Atlantic thing. However, it is true that we cannot assume all the pre-Roman tribes were predominantly L21. The Welsh are apparently largely the descendants of the Iron Age peoples of Wales, not some sort of refuge for the Britons of England as is often portrayed. I have a suspicion the Belgae had a significant amount of U152 and perhaps other non-L21 P312 clades. Its also an area where you would suspect the Roman empire to have left some exotica.

Do you have a source for the Welsh being largely an Iron Age people? I hadn't heard that before.

If we look at genetic studies on this topic, remember that the focus is largely on Y-dna and the women are often ignored. It could be that ancient British females survived the Dark Ages more than the men!

When it comes to migration of ethnic groups, it's much easier to pigeonhole Y-haplogroup than mtDNA's. While many subclades of e.g R1b have very specific geographic distributions that correlate with historical migrations (l21 to Celts, U106 to Germanics), mtDNA's tend to have a more homogeneous spread over Europe, with most haplogroups running to similar percentages in most regions.

That said, if there are mtDNA subclades that are found in the traditional Germanic-speaking world, and a rare in regions were few Germanics have migrated, then we'd be able to test the Anglo-Saxon replacement hypothesis. We'd also have to check if these haplogroups as a common as west Britain. If they aren't, then they're likely a good candidate for AS and Viking lineages in Britain.

The contribution of AS and Vikings on the Y-chromosome, which appears to be quite significant, is likely more than on the mtDNA side as migrants tend to bring less women with them.

Quote

I've mentioned it before but at the moment genetics is unable to give precise figures for ancient Briton survival in England.

Maybe a quick way to do it would be to take the percentage of l21 in a region, and add approximately 30 percent (as the people of western Britain were once probably about 70 percent l21 but migration has turned that to more like 60 percent).

So a area with 30 percent l21 could be about 40 percent pre-Anglo Saxon British.

The percentages may be too low because it doesn't take into account non-L21 admixture from Romans and Belgics in England. But with the small amount of L21 brought by Germanics, this may balance itself out.

This of course rests on the assumption that prior to the Romans the amount of L21 in England was more or less identical to the Celtic Fringe.

Thanks. Could you recommend the best dataset to look at the regional distribution of L21 in Britain?

Has anybody posted an good approximate list of the SNPs that should be included on the Geno2.0?

@Mark,

Nat Geo will publish a detailed report, including SNPs, for the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting, which will be held in San Francisco in November.

In total, the new SNP count to be included on the new Nat Geo 2.0 chip includes both new and known existing SNPs in the following amounts: ■Autosomal including X – 147,000 ■Neanderthal – 26,000 ■Denisovan – 1,500 ■Aboriginal – 13,000 ■Eskimo – 12,000 ■Chimpanzee – 1,100 ■Y Chromosome – 12,000 ■mtDNA – 31,000

Q&A with Bennett Greenspan"Does Family Tree DNA plan to offer a test that will be more extensive then the new Genographic test for the Y chromosome?

A: No. The most extensive test for obtaining YDNA SNP data is available on the Geno 2.0 chip and Family Tree DNA has no plans to compete with its partner. STR results will not be supplied by Geno 2.0 and all regular genealogical marker tests should be ordered through Family Tree DNA. These two tests go hand in hand.

By way of example, in haplogroup R-M222 – the new Geno chip includes discoveries of at least three unique SNP’s downstream of R-M222.

These 10,000 new SNPs will provide, for almost everyone, one or two additional clades (subhaplogroups) down the tree from where they are located today. For some people, these will reach into a genealogical timeframe, connecting their SNPs and their STR data. The STR tests will then be used to further augment the Geno 2.0 SNP tests for genealogical comparisons within families."

Q&A with Spencer Wells"How many SNPs do we have in the test?

A total of around 146,000 ancestry-informative markers (AIMs): ~130,000 autosomal and X-chromosomal, ~13,000 Y-chromosomal, and ~3200 mtDNA"

In addition to discussing the SNPs on chips information that Spencer has previously provided to our community, he also says that ‘National Geographic and its partners are preparing two publications that discuss the new chip and have submitted an abstract for the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting, which will be held in San Francisco in November.”

Spencer also spoke a little about the new National Geographic online community capability. This will be in addition to the option for participants to transfer their results to Family Tree DNA, for free. He says that “participants will have the opportunity to choose to register for the Genographic online community to connect with other participants and find shared ancestry, helping to fill in the gaps between what they know about their recent genealogy and their genetic results.”

I didnt quite explain my question properly. I should have added 'specific "Y-DNA"' SNPs by name that will be included in the new test which I just edited in my previous post. The information you have posted was timely though as some may not have any idea as to what is to be included in the Geno2.0 testing.

Fine, but not any better than testing for L21 instead of L459. Had he been the man in Case A above, starting with L21 would have spared him the waste of time and money on DF13.

This case is critical. We can look at multiple cases, but this is the one that counts. The large majority of L21 is DF13 so this is the important situation. As I just posted, probably the most financially smart thing is for people to skip both L21 and L459 if they are P312+ U152- DF27- and particularly if they are from the British Isles.

This is just semantics, but in a sense, DF13 has usurped L21. L21xDF13 just isn't a very large group. It's still important for understanding the origin of DF13. Likewise, I think L459xL21 is important for understanding the origin of L21.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. For most Brit and Irish guys, yeah, just skipping right from P312 to DF13 would work out fine, but I still think testing for L21 first is the best way, because you don't know what you're going to get until you get it (unless you already have a bunch of matches with other men who have tested a particular way).

@Castlebob,The publication of the "People of the British Isles" report should give us lots of new data and should balance things out a bit. I am also looking forward to the "Irish DNA Atlas" to give a total picture of the Isles. I am participating in this project. In the next few months we should get the detailed results of the Geno 2.0 project and this should give us new insights into the genetic makeup of the Isles. I have also subscribed to Geno 2.0. There is a lot to look forward to in the next few months.

Thanks Heber,I suppose I'll have to think about following suit. I might have to do so without the Commanding Officer (wife) finding out!Cheers,Bob

Although it is a bit of a generalisation I do think a good L21 frequency map for England to compare with a goo U106 map would probably be as close as we can get to a Celtic substrate v Germanics map for England. I tend to think U152 is also more likely Celtic in origin given its sudden fall off at the Romance-Germanic interface in northern Europe close to England. I do recall some study showing that there was a much higher L21 in Devon and inland Yorkshire (where Celtic lingered in the kingdoms of Domnonia and in Loidis/Elmet and even later) than in the south and east. I would think L21 has an clear cline from east to west but I cant think of an entirely satisfactory map showing this. I am well aware it is slightly generalising but the L21/U106 ratio still seems about the closest R1b-based measure of Celtic vs Germanic. L21 is even the top dog in NE Scotland so its not just an Atlantic thing. However, it is true that we cannot assume all the pre-Roman tribes were predominantly L21. The Welsh are apparently largely the descendants of the Iron Age peoples of Wales, not some sort of refuge for the Britons of England as is often portrayed. I have a suspicion the Belgae had a significant amount of U152 and perhaps other non-L21 P312 clades. Its also an area where you would suspect the Roman empire to have left some exotica.

Maciamo Hay of Eupedia based his L21 map largely on the Busby et al data, I believe, with the addition of the Begoña Martinez-Cruz et al (2012) data for the little dark spots in the Basque Country. So, I think it's pretty accurate.

I'm not going to go back and look it all up, but I believe Capelli's British Isles study and Rootsi's big y haplogroup I study showed the I1 stuff generally thought be either Anglo-Saxon and/or Viking as most frequent in pretty much the same places where U106 is most frequent and declining as one moves north and west into the places where L21 predominates.

Note: When looking at the maps above, it is important to keep in mind that they have different frequency shading scales.

I looked at the 'Peoples of the british Isles' website a little while ago & noticed a map showing a region roughly corresponding to the Anglo-Welsh border, about where southern Gloucestershire meets Wales, shaded pale blue. I also noticed a similar colour used covering N W Cumbria. I'm buggered if I can find out if these two regions share similar DNA as I can't navigate the site very well. I'm interested in those specific areas as there were approx 5 or 6 of us who were L21-, L238- (see my haplogroup info at foot of message), who seem to share very distant Y-DNA patterns. From memory, Williams, Jones, MacFarlane & Armstrong were the surnames concerned. I equate Williams & Jones with Wales; Armstrong & MacFarlane with Kingdom of Rheged/Kingdom of Strathclyde.Am I way out of kilter with this?Cheers,Bob

I'm not going to go back and look it all up, but I believe Capelli's British Isles study and Rootsi's big y haplogroup I study showed the I1 stuff generally thought be either Anglo-Saxon and/or Viking as most frequent in pretty much the same places where U106 is most frequent and declining as one moves north and west into the places where L21 predominates.

Rootsi's maps for I1 show the expected clines for the haplogroup in Britain. Both I1a and I2a2 (called I1c in the map) show decreasing frequencies to the west. I2a2 could be seen as a primarily North German/Anglo Saxon marker and I1a as a primarily Scandinavian-Viking marker, but both hgs are common in those two areas.

I looked at the 'Peoples of the british Isles' website a little while ago & noticed a map showing a region roughly corresponding to the Anglo-Welsh border, about where southern Gloucestershire meets Wales, shaded pale blue.

According to their project site, one of the subregions they tested was the Forest of Dean, so that would be it. They haven't actually said what the colors stand for, yet. Something autosomal, though.